Author
Topic: The First Canon EOS 6D Video Footage (Read 18575 times)

That's fine, and I can understand the logic (sort of). But if that is what they are doing then why bother sticking video in at all. Surely a headphone jack can't be that big a deal for the engineers or the camera itself, but I am not an engineer.

I am one of those guys that thinks if you are going to do something do it right, and as it is almost 2013 and as this new 6D does have video then in my eyes it should have a headphone jack. And the 1D X as the flagship should have all the bells and whistles.

I suppose every camera gets video just because every camera has video nowdays. To leave it off would be rather silly, at this point, IMO.

The headphone jack surely isn't a big deal, but port real estate is a bit limiting when you consider the size of the body and allowances for multiple ports to be used at once, some with L-shaped plugs. The 1D C has a headphone port, yes...but it takes the place of the PC sync port on the 1D X - that's what I mean about intended for video vs. having video capability. The 6D is a smaller body, and has neither headphone nor PC ports.

What surprises me is Canon has again released a brand new XD series without a headphone jack.

The 1D X does not have one and now this latest model from Canon does not have one.

Not all of us want to use external recorders to monitor sound levels during a recording.

Bizarre.

I don't get what surprises you so much.

For all intents and purposes this camera is nothing more than the 5D2 put into a slightly cheaper body and added a few extra bells and whistles (in the Wifi).

If you want to record sound in video then by all means thats your prerogative but all that in camera sound is really good for is a scratch track if filming shorts or as a talking heads mic if shooting BTS or doco style.

External sound will ALWAYS be a better option.

People that want to shoot video on a DSLR forget that its not a video camera and need to realise that it costs money to start playing with the big kids. Sure you can buy a 650D or 6D for between $800 and $3k but then what? Are you going to stick your Sigma 50mm f1.8 on there or are you also going to invest in decent lenses? A set of CP.2s are not cheap.

Are you going to use crappy in camera sound or are you going to invest in a H4n or Tascam recorder, or better still hire an actual sound recordist and use something like a Sound Devices 744T?

Its one of the things that separates the professionals from the hobbyists.

What surprises me is Canon has again released a brand new XD series without a headphone jack.The 1D X does not have one and now this latest model from Canon does not have one.

But the 1D C does, as does the 5DIII. Seems like Canon is differentiating between bodies that can shoot video (which is all of the current ones, obviously), and bodies that are intended to be used for video.

That's fine, and I can understand the logic (sort of). But if that is what they are doing then why bother sticking video in at all. Surely a headphone jack can't be that big a deal for the engineers or the camera itself, but I am not an engineer.

I am one of those guys that thinks if you are going to do something do it right, and as it is almost 2013 and as this new 6D does have video then in my eyes it should have a headphone jack. And the 1D X as the flagship should have all the bells and whistles.

Will be interesting to see what they do with the 7D ii and the new High MP cameras.

Its not a matter of if they can, but how they target the market with options on diff cameras. They could make it possible to record all your user settings on a 5DM3 but they don't they leave that for the 1D series cameras.

Canon has and will always put photography before video, the line skipping method of downsampling proves it. I would be happy to have just a Canon Rebel that could properly downsample the sensor for 1080p with a method other than line skipping.

Maybe its because there are quite a few buyers out there who want video? The need for a stills only camera would probably be confined to a very small niche market (mainly pro's that spend their time taking stills). So, if DSLR sales increase due to people buying them because the either a) "and it can great do video too!", or b) "It's the best quality for the price for my business," crowd then why stop them? From everything I hear video costs very little to add. If it creates additional sales it keeps other things we still shooters want moving forward!

With that said, I would very much like to see more still shot samples from the 6d, and more hands on reviews (sick of only seeing either spec based reviews or preproduction images)

So for those that do not think Canon should have put a headphone jack in this (what US$ 2000?) camera, and then (some at least) go on about external recorders, why do they bother to put a mic jack in?

Do not get me wrong, I won't be buying this camera, and have equal interest in video as stills, but I just do not get why Canon are producing such new cameras without such basic jacks.

All I am trying to say is if you put a mic jack in a camera of this price level then I think there should automatically be a headphone jack as well. Give the user the choice to use what he/she prefers.

I think we would all agree monitoring sound via some sound bars on a screen is one of the worse things you can do.

I talked to a Canon representative two weeks ago here in Ottawa at a photography show about the 6D which I had in my hands, and he was honnest. He said the 6D was designed for people wanting a full frame for the image quality, while family travelling, hence the size, I can see the video quality and features being adequate for that purpose. I currently own a 40D, and use 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II lens 99% of time on it to shoot sports, and for sports portrait I was thinking of getting the 6D, he told me that the AF speed would be a tad faster than my 40D, but that's it, and I can see while on a family trip that being quite sufficient.

I think the video will be just fine for shooting some video on trip while carrying one body, and a full frame with that.

Logged

joemod

I talked to a Canon representative two weeks ago here in Ottawa at a photography show about the 6D which I had in my hands, and he was honnest. He said the 6D was designed for people wanting a full frame for the image quality, while family travelling, hence the size, I can see the video quality and features being adequate for that purpose. I currently own a 40D, and use 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II lens 99% of time on it to shoot sports, and for sports portrait I was thinking of getting the 6D, he told me that the AF speed would be a tad faster than my 40D, but that's it, and I can see while on a family trip that being quite sufficient.

I think the video will be just fine for shooting some video on trip while carrying one body, and a full frame with that.

Pardon, but 2,100$ for family travelling and tad faster AF speed? Greece is in very bad shape, but I don't think that the rest of the world is in much better shape for customers to spend that amount for family travelling.

So for those that do not think Canon should have put a headphone jack in this (what US$ 2000?) camera, and then (some at least) go on about external recorders, why do they bother to put a mic jack in?

Do not get me wrong, I won't be buying this camera, and have equal interest in video as stills, but I just do not get why Canon are producing such new cameras without such basic jacks.

All I am trying to say is if you put a mic jack in a camera of this price level then I think there should automatically be a headphone jack as well. Give the user the choice to use what he/she prefers.

I think we would all agree monitoring sound via some sound bars on a screen is one of the worse things you can do.

As this an ENTRY level FF I don't get why your demanding this. The 6d is targeted towards the casual consumer! The casual consumer most likely won't give a rats ass about audio monitoring, much less actually know how to do that or what to listen for. If you want gear with more features you pay for it. If you can't, then you find workarounds!

As this an ENTRY level FF I don't get why your demanding this. The 6d is targeted towards the casual consumer! The casual consumer most likely won't give a rats ass about audio monitoring, much less actually know how to do that or what to listen for. If you want gear with more features you pay for it. If you can't, then you find workarounds!

If you read my post, you will see I won't be buying this camera, not because of the lack of a headphone jack just cos it does not meet my needs.

I was taking about the lack of a headphone jack not only because this is an entry level FF aimed at consumers, but also because it is brand new and it is almost the year 2013 and Canon has got a lot of new competition from companies that do add such stuff to their cameras.

I was not asking why it did not have XLR, I just humbly think that if you are going to stick a mic jack (I presume it has one) in a brand new US$ 2,XXX camera then it should have a headphone jack. That way IF someone wanted to do video at least they could monitor the sound without having to buy an external recorder which would then make the mic jack totally pointless.

Or: "Don't trust reviews based on pre-production models!" :-) ... still, with my well-known enthusiasm for Canon marketing :-p I wouldn't be surprised if the 6d has worse video than the 5d3, let's hope at least the aa filter for still shots is not as strong so images will be sharper.

So for those that do not think Canon should have put a headphone jack in this (what US$ 2000?) camera, and then (some at least) go on about external recorders, why do they bother to put a mic jack in?

You do understand that without a line/mic in you can't run a line out of an external mixer/preamp into a camera?

And you do understand how awful the headphone jack on the 5dm3 is?

Hell even having a cheap mic run straight into the camera (something like a rode ntg2 or videomic) to use as a track for something like pluraleyes to sync your high quality externally recorded sound to makes sense - and theres no reason or need to monitor that.

The 6D isn't meant to be a cinema camera - Canon did say the 5diii would be the EOS camera with better video than other offerings. But if you really wanted to use as such it would do fine - seeing as it's not pitched as a pro cameras it will no doubt be used by a lot of people for filming their kids and suchlike.

And judging video quality off a downconverted web video from a pre-production camera isn't going to tell you anything remotely definitive anyways.

I talked to a Canon representative two weeks ago here in Ottawa at a photography show about the 6D which I had in my hands, and he was honnest. He said the 6D was designed for people wanting a full frame for the image quality, while family travelling, hence the size, I can see the video quality and features being adequate for that purpose. I currently own a 40D, and use 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II lens 99% of time on it to shoot sports, and for sports portrait I was thinking of getting the 6D, he told me that the AF speed would be a tad faster than my 40D, but that's it, and I can see while on a family trip that being quite sufficient.

I think the video will be just fine for shooting some video on trip while carrying one body, and a full frame with that.

Pardon, but 2,100$ for family travelling and tad faster AF speed? Greece is in very bad shape, but I don't think that the rest of the world is in much better shape for customers to spend that amount for family travelling.

If you're in that bad shape maybe you would be better served with a 5dc, or a non full frame camera.